October 25, 2007

War Plans for Iran

"if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you
ought to be interested in preventing them (the Iranians) from have the
knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."-- GW Bush

Sounds reasonable to me. It is in everybody's interest to keep Iran from going loony. The trick seems to be how might this be done when they are funding Hezbolla.

But let's just say for the sake of argument, that there isn't jack we can do to stop Iran from building the Islamic Bomb. What's next? Obviously, any president who isn't having his military planners consider that possibility isn't worth a dime. Obama, are you listening?

Anyone who read Colin Powell's bio knows that the general spent many months with many thousands of troops and tactical nukes at the ready watching the Fulda Gap ever on alert for WW3. He was there. That's no joke. That's the way America operates, and that is not going to change. It should change. We should pre-empt those with hostile intentions. It's pay now or pay later and the PNACians understand this.

We have been fortunate to have a President who puts troops in harms way and develop our own capability in the field of operations. Petraeus is somebody who could not have happened in the Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton eras. In those days, the American President was too accustomed to overusing, and often abusing the Directorate of Operations of the CIA and paying proxy soldiers and Contras to do the geopolitical heavy lifting that should have been our burden in the first place. The more I study this sad history of the Cold War, the more I lament the idea that we could place 'advisors' all over the globe and do covert war using local 'freedom fighters'. I'm glad we have a real Army and yes Blackwater doing all of this hard military work above board in broad daylight. That's how American wars should be.

But the plans for such wars should always remains ongoing and in secret. That's what the Pentagon gets paid to do - plan for and respond to threats.

In the current American political environment, it is difficult for me to see how we might ever attain the kind of rapport with the Iranian people that we deserve. We Americans are quite lousy at diplomacy. I don't mean our diplomats and bureaucrats at State, I mean our citizens. We don't establish real ties to foreign countries in very significant ways. Even now through the Iraqi conflict, we have not by and large come to any advanced accommodation with the Iraqi people. We have done admirably well as of late being the proper soldiers in pacification, but we Americans can hardly brag about being goodwill ambassadors to the Middle East. It is not because of our foreign policy, it is because of our worldview. We can be so very condescending. Even through that, I have been constantly buoyed by the actual words of Secretary Rice and Ambassador Crocker whenever I hear them. It's not enough, but it's something.

I don't know how to get America on track, to focus on national consensus so that we may give our better natures more air. The same spirit that brings us to compassion over the conflict in Darfur is the primary American spirit. When it comes down to it, we do help and we do everything in a big way. We will come back to being a nation of consensus.

When we do become a nation of consensus once again, it will be useful to point out, and believe me I will, those marginal loudmouths who will turn the bile they reserve for the Bush Administration towards America in general. For when the White House and the Congress will bi-partisanly agree to defend American interests abroad, you can be sure that the George Carlins of the world will cynically describe us as 'a warlike people' while fighting to preserve their grip on the right to spew the obscenity of the day. It will be the tenor of language they will have to use in order to shock us out of the 'complacency' of rational national interest.

Those of us who to strive to be rational everyday are quite well aware that Iranians fall in love and have babies too. It only means they are people. We hear critics suggest that war plans dehumanize the enemy - and it is only a sort of xenophobic racism, or religious intolerance that allows us to consider drawing up plans to fight wars. What they cannot seem to imagine is the kind of rationale I've had as a moral geopolitical neocon since day one:

Yet if I could stop for a minute and start dealing with the hideous
facts of the matter on the ground in Iraq (and probably a half dozen
other horrible places), I wonder if I would mind so much if my
president is Shrek instead of a Handsome Prince. I'm a policy snob in
the face of Saddam's clear and present danger. Not to me, to Iraqis.
It's not about me.

Since it is not about me, and a busybody neighbor is better than an
abusive parent, I have to concede the fact that an ugly rescue is
better than benign neglect. I feel that our geopolitical snobbery and
posing are pretty worthless right about now, and the fact that we have
to wheedle our way around the diplomatic chicanery of the UN and
everyplace else is only necessitated by a failure of brotherhood and an
ignoble squeamishness which is not rescued by our well-meant outrage at
Bush's mendacity. I do believe in class warfare.That means noblesse on
our part and revolt by the Shi'a.

The focus of the world is on Saddam Hussein. WMD or no, Iraqis are
hopeless without our intervention. Now is the time for action,
political snobs be damned. No matter how physically wreckless we may
be, and I have a strong feeling that we won't be, this war is better
happening than not. No matter how diplomatically wreckless we have
been, and I know for damned sure that we have been, those are only
words and hard feelings, but they're not lives. Lives are more
important than words.

Americans who rationally observe the actions of Ahmadinejad's Quds forces, his engagements in Iraq and Lebanon through them and Hezbollah must see how he seeks to undermine the rule of law and of national sovereignty. Americans who hear his willingness to question the statehood of Israel should rationally question his willingness to respect borders.

Comments

"if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you
ought to be interested in preventing them (the Iranians) from have the
knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."-- GW Bush

Sounds reasonable to me. It is in everybody's interest to keep Iran from going loony. The trick seems to be how might this be done when they are funding Hezbolla.

But let's just say for the sake of argument, that there isn't jack we can do to stop Iran from building the Islamic Bomb. What's next? Obviously, any president who isn't having his military planners consider that possibility isn't worth a dime. Obama, are you listening?

Anyone who read Colin Powell's bio knows that the general spent many months with many thousands of troops and tactical nukes at the ready watching the Fulda Gap ever on alert for WW3. He was there. That's no joke. That's the way America operates, and that is not going to change. It should change. We should pre-empt those with hostile intentions. It's pay now or pay later and the PNACians understand this.

We have been fortunate to have a President who puts troops in harms way and develop our own capability in the field of operations. Petraeus is somebody who could not have happened in the Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton eras. In those days, the American President was too accustomed to overusing, and often abusing the Directorate of Operations of the CIA and paying proxy soldiers and Contras to do the geopolitical heavy lifting that should have been our burden in the first place. The more I study this sad history of the Cold War, the more I lament the idea that we could place 'advisors' all over the globe and do covert war using local 'freedom fighters'. I'm glad we have a real Army and yes Blackwater doing all of this hard military work above board in broad daylight. That's how American wars should be.

But the plans for such wars should always remains ongoing and in secret. That's what the Pentagon gets paid to do - plan for and respond to threats.

In the current American political environment, it is difficult for me to see how we might ever attain the kind of rapport with the Iranian people that we deserve. We Americans are quite lousy at diplomacy. I don't mean our diplomats and bureaucrats at State, I mean our citizens. We don't establish real ties to foreign countries in very significant ways. Even now through the Iraqi conflict, we have not by and large come to any advanced accommodation with the Iraqi people. We have done admirably well as of late being the proper soldiers in pacification, but we Americans can hardly brag about being goodwill ambassadors to the Middle East. It is not because of our foreign policy, it is because of our worldview. We can be so very condescending. Even through that, I have been constantly buoyed by the actual words of Secretary Rice and Ambassador Crocker whenever I hear them. It's not enough, but it's something.

I don't know how to get America on track, to focus on national consensus so that we may give our better natures more air. The same spirit that brings us to compassion over the conflict in Darfur is the primary American spirit. When it comes down to it, we do help and we do everything in a big way. We will come back to being a nation of consensus.

When we do become a nation of consensus once again, it will be useful to point out, and believe me I will, those marginal loudmouths who will turn the bile they reserve for the Bush Administration towards America in general. For when the White House and the Congress will bi-partisanly agree to defend American interests abroad, you can be sure that the George Carlins of the world will cynically describe us as 'a warlike people' while fighting to preserve their grip on the right to spew the obscenity of the day. It will be the tenor of language they will have to use in order to shock us out of the 'complacency' of rational national interest.

Those of us who to strive to be rational everyday are quite well aware that Iranians fall in love and have babies too. It only means they are people. We hear critics suggest that war plans dehumanize the enemy - and it is only a sort of xenophobic racism, or religious intolerance that allows us to consider drawing up plans to fight wars. What they cannot seem to imagine is the kind of rationale I've had as a moral geopolitical neocon since day one:

Yet if I could stop for a minute and start dealing with the hideous
facts of the matter on the ground in Iraq (and probably a half dozen
other horrible places), I wonder if I would mind so much if my
president is Shrek instead of a Handsome Prince. I'm a policy snob in
the face of Saddam's clear and present danger. Not to me, to Iraqis.
It's not about me.

Since it is not about me, and a busybody neighbor is better than an
abusive parent, I have to concede the fact that an ugly rescue is
better than benign neglect. I feel that our geopolitical snobbery and
posing are pretty worthless right about now, and the fact that we have
to wheedle our way around the diplomatic chicanery of the UN and
everyplace else is only necessitated by a failure of brotherhood and an
ignoble squeamishness which is not rescued by our well-meant outrage at
Bush's mendacity. I do believe in class warfare.That means noblesse on
our part and revolt by the Shi'a.

The focus of the world is on Saddam Hussein. WMD or no, Iraqis are
hopeless without our intervention. Now is the time for action,
political snobs be damned. No matter how physically wreckless we may
be, and I have a strong feeling that we won't be, this war is better
happening than not. No matter how diplomatically wreckless we have
been, and I know for damned sure that we have been, those are only
words and hard feelings, but they're not lives. Lives are more
important than words.

Americans who rationally observe the actions of Ahmadinejad's Quds forces, his engagements in Iraq and Lebanon through them and Hezbollah must see how he seeks to undermine the rule of law and of national sovereignty. Americans who hear his willingness to question the statehood of Israel should rationally question his willingness to respect borders.